User talk:Nasnema/Archive 2

Regarding added content "2G spectrum..." in article "Subrata Roy"

Since the concerned matter is sub-judice, i.e. pending before court of law, any vexatious or biased comment or accusation causing damage to the image and reputation of an individual in lieu of any court verdict against the said individual, amounts to a criminal offence of Defamation under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. All persons who draft, publish, or aid and assist in drafting or publishing any such defamatory content are liable to be prosecuted in the court of law.
 * The IP address posting the above has now been blocked for making legal threats. In addition, it has been pointed out that the "Indian Penal Code" is likely of no relevance to editors who are not located in India, nor to Wikipedia itself (since Wikipedia is not hosted in India). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * noted - someone throwing his toys out of the pram. Nasnema   Chat  21:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

about Sajah
As I explained its from Bani Tamim !! so why did you do that ? see this: http://oi51.tinypic.com/2aij094.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.81.56 (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * because it looked like quote mining and put out of context and biased - see WP:NPOV. Nasnema   Chat  09:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * what about Sajah article she is from Bani Tamim not from Taghlib as I show it in book titled "THE STRUGGLE AGAINST MUSAYLIMA AND THE CONQUEST OF YAMAMA" by M. J. Kister, page23, you can read it here http://oi51.tinypic.com/2aij094.jpg
 * you can see her mom was from Taghlib and she's from Bani Tamim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.81.56 (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You should see that I only took out a quotation that looked out of context and contrary to WP:NPOV, not all of your changes. The source puts the rationale for the quote but you didn't include it, so it came across as quote mining for some political reason. That is why that small portion of your changes was reverted. Nasnema   Chat  09:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the Sajah article back to the way you wanted it. Please accept my apologies for the confusion caused. Nasnema   Chat  10:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank God, you finally understood, thank you for your kindness. Tmemey 10:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * yes: humble pie this end. The confusion was down to the mention of Bani Tamim, so I thought that was the edit you were on about. Sorry. Nasnema   Chat  10:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Helen Hill HG bot article
Your bot auto-rv'ed a good edit to that article with explanation to the edit summary. Sorry to undo, but if a thing's worth doing it's worth doing right. Desk Jockey (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, sorry about that. I should have been paying more attention, but it's late here so time to give it a rest and sign out. Nasnema   Chat  22:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Phi Beta Sigma and Zeta Phi Beta
I'm counting what User talk:Sassy1981 29 did as being *somewhat* in good faith. Even though the edits were not acceptable, they did leave the article in a slightly useful state. The editor doesn't seem like a pure vandalizer. I left a long message on their talk page. *Hopefully* the editor can be turned into one who improves the articles (even with COI)...Naraht (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Driving people away
Are you trying to drive brand new people away? If so, you're doing good. How do you guys stay in business?PumpkinSky (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * explain why you think that please. Nasnema   Chat  23:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Instead of some welcome, the first post to me is an ERROR from some stupid bot and then the next two are from you about how I've screwed up wiki. And the notice aren't personal notes, they're clearly canned responses--cold and impersonal. My edits are sound, there is nothing wrong with them. Is everything this hostile here?PumpkinSky (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And now you remove it? What a joke. It's valid and constructive, it's not an attack or anything. What is wrong with you?PumpkinSky (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * removed what? you were making a statement that had no references attached, even though the main panel might support it. Give references and it stays in. Sorry it might seem impersonal but it is a vandalism patrol tool called Huggle. Nasnema   Chat  23:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's NOT vandalism, it's valid and constructive. Use some common sense. For example, on Pfalzweyer there was only one sentence WITH NO REF, I add a second sentence, you remove it, claiming no ref, but you leave in the first one. HELLO!! GEEZ. Do you want new people or not? Do you ref every single sentence you add? I highly doubt it. PumpkinSky (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * so you don't have a reference? See WP:VERIFY Nasnema   Chat  23:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Answer my questions first. Do not evade them. I see all you do is undo other people's work because you don't have a clue.PumpkinSky (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * and WTF was this about? I change upper (which is wrong) to lower and you change it back? [And this one. Refs go afte punctuation, not before, standard all over the place. EXPLAIN THOSEPumpkinSky (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you stalking me now or something? I know you can't possibly have a rational explanation for those change backs you've made. PumpkinSky (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not stlaking just patrolling. You flagged up because of the unreferenced changes being made. Sorry about the typo changes you made that shouldn't have been reverted: it's late and I was a little hasty. Nasnema   Chat  23:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered my questions. PumpkinSky (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll have to run those by me again. I've admitted reverting a a couple of edits in error. Nasnema   Chat  00:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reread this thread.PumpkinSky (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you need to get off your high horse mate. Nasnema   Chat  00:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you're the one on the high horse, towit, mate, so I'll spell it out: 1) In Loveland, NONE of the three paragraphs has a specific ref. Why aren't they removed too? Why just my edit? The fact I put in is from the same "source" already listed. This makes no sense whatsoever 2) Pfalzweyer was only a geographic fact and also has no specific refs so why isn't the rest removed too 3) this shows you are mindlessly editng with an automated tool, backed up by the fact you haven't added content in ages only removed it, why's that? There's no way you can validly defend your actions items one and two. 4) did you yourself in the past add a ref for every sentence 5) I see tons of sentences on wiki with no ref, why are you hounding and threatening me, a brand new user, rather than welcoming me and showing me the ropes, all you've done is change my edits and threaten me. PumpkinSky (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times, here's one, entire SECTIONS have no ref. Why is this not being removed? PumpkinSky (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * CBSO Chorus has no references at all. Should everything in the article be taken out? PumpkinSky (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have an account and you still did it to me. You still need to explain yourself.PumpkinSky (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Driving people away: Part 2
I am not familiar with the above controversey, but, apparently, I to am new, and most definitely you are driving me away, since you are falsely claiming that I did not cite my sources. So much for Wikipedia -- what a waste of time this place is! 71.101.40.113 (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Replying to your recent comments (and placing my reply on the bottom where it belongs)
I didn't know talk existed for an anonomous editor -and chanced upon your message -- new to all this stuff LOL -- now you say that I put in a claim in which I did not cite my source on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_tuition_in_the_United_States#Causes ?? Which, if you could please, was that? I made some claims, and then added sources to verify -- but if one claim was not sourced sufficiently, I hope that you wold not delete or remove all and throw out the baby with the bathwater.

could u please clarify? Thx!

(-: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.40.113 (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Repost of my original reply on 'talk' page
Huh? I thought that I cited my sources --go back and look -- what do you mean that I did not cite my source? Sorry -- new to this stuff, but I thought I followed the Wikipedia rules here -- I have heard rumors of childish arguments on this website, and if you are serious with what you said, then this makes a good case that I should not join your website:

I followed the rules, and yet you deleted my posts, falsely claiming that I did not cite my sources. Maybe there was a misunderstanding; could you please clarifiy? Thank you!

(-:/

71.101.40.113 (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry. It is hard to pick out annonymous editors who are making genuine contributions and I missed that there was a series of edits that explained your actions. My action was only intended to protect Wikipedia from vandals and that the edits were reverted and in this case was in error. The multiple revert is caused by rollback that assume one edits bad therefore all edits are bad for a particular user. Please get an account and help avoid this kind of issue. Nasnema   Chat  20:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

An Invite to join the WikiProject Education in India
naveenpf (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

College tuition in the United States
Please be careful when reverting edits by other users. Your edit to this article, which claimed to remove unsourced material, removed material which was in fact properly sourced and cited; one of the citations provided was to the United States Government Accounting Office (GAO). Let me know if you have any questions. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: you have been reported
Hello, Nasnema. I wanted to make you aware of the fact that I have reported you to multiple editors, and you should be hearing from them soon. Please do not take this the wrong way, and please do not be discouraged or sad, but your behaviour has been deplorable. Please realise that you do not have to give up -- there is hope -- here is the message that I posted --and will continue to post until your ehavious changes. Ta.

Message:

I am an unregistered editor, and I attempted to edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&action=history where I see you have edited recently, but 'Nasnema' just now apparently vandalised the page, and reverted my edits, falsely claiming that I did not cite my sources; I did cite my sources.

I am a religious person who believes in God, and I do not wish to cause unnecessary pain or trouble for 'Nasnema,' but also, I must defend the truth and what is right: It would appear that this user is valdalising this page, & falsely claiming that I am --which makes a good case that I should not join Wikipedia. Could you please look into it? Thank you71.101.40.113 (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. IP...I'll back you up if you need it. PumpkinSky (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that the IP editor has canvassed a large number of other editors in this matter. While the IP's edits appear to be constructive and properly sourced and cited, I begin to question the motivation and neutrality of those edits. I'll keep an eye on the article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your help -- I hope that this new editor, Nasnema, can calm down -- I am sure he will be a good editor if given the chance.
 * Also, you are correct: I am NOT neutral (plz realise that I am only human after all), but, on my honour, I do indeed intend & hope to make my edits neutral, unbiased, polite, and factually accurate.
 * Oh, I will add that I do have non-neutral motivations: I have a college loan that has tried to take me under, even though I tried my best to be respinsible, but if/when I edit, I do hope to be factual and balanced.71.101.40.113 (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Appreciated =)  Nik the  stoned  11:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Polkville, North Carolina
FYI, Polkville is legally classified as a city, so what you reverted was indeed vandalism. I don't know why such small places are considered cities, but they are, so we have to accept it. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nasnema is notorious for this sort of blind reverting. And he doesn't listen to valid critiques. He still owes me an explanation from about 6 weeks ago. Pumpkin Sky   talk  12:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-08-08/News_and_notes, the section about how people treat others, especially newbies, drives them away. You're part of the bad behavior causing that. If it weren't for some decent admins I'd have been one leaving soon too. You really need to read this Signpost article and think about your wiki behavior, but history shows you'll ignore it and continue your deplorable behavior. That's too bad for all of us. Pumpkin Sky  talk  03:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

What are you two on about? You should notice that the net effect of my editing there was zero after I initially reverted an anonoymous editor who had changed it to a town, but then thought: wait a minute he must be right so changed it back. End result: nothing changed by me. Have a go at the anon instead. Have a nice day to all my stalkers. Nasnema  Chat  07:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice to know I was correct, just ignore the issue and hope it goes away. You'll always owe me an explanation and apology for what you did about 6-7 weeks ago, but that's on you, not me. Pumpkin Sky  talk  11:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct about what? You talked about blind reverting, that is what a vandal patroller does when unreferenced and uncommented changes are made that do not seem to be minor changes, e.g. changing town to city. Nasnema   Chat  11:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You sound like a robot. But you were wrong here and with me yet you refuse to admit it. Neither entry was vandalism yet you call them vandalism. Use some common sense. Pumpkin Sky  talk  12:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about - neither entry? Whatever it is that is stuck in your craw you should perhaps leave it be. Nasnema   Chat  12:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reread our talk page entries on that page from that time. I don't need to repeat myself. You should admit you're not perfect, you've made several mistakes, including this one with Pokeville, and fess up. I'm not going to let you mistreat me and others and get away with it. Pumpkin Sky  talk  12:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My goodness, you do have a problem, mister Pumpkin. Well that's the end of my conversations with you mate. Have a good day. Nasnema   Chat  12:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * NO, you're the one with the problem. At least admit it to yourself if not to others. You're the one with two people bringing concerns about your wiki conduct to their talk page, not me. Pumpkin Sky   talk  12:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)